Oh and for some reason I do not have permission to post in the new threads. I figured it was due to some sort of probationary period prior to the security pass like they do at the JW Watchtower and Free Masonry

New users cannot create new threads, but should be able to post in threads of whatever age.

Well, at least now you're on topic, but why on earthEditing is a privilege that is earned. Unfortunately, anti-science advocates have proven unreliable on this score in the past do you imagine anyone here would be interested in a trailer for Expelled? You may notice that this threat is currently 118 pages long and has gone on for 4 years - the commenters here are very familiar with the movie. If I can presume to speak for others here I would say the consensus is that it is total dreck (a view shared by the scientifically literate community). Given what you've posted above I cannot see how you're going to change that.

If you think that the thread has lost its salt then maybe you should take it up with the mode take it up a moderator instead. Come to think of it, I guess am accustomed to threads getting pushed pushed from the top of the first page after about a week so. Oh and Kristine was under the impression that my post on mutations had little or nothing to do with the movie "expelled" so I simply cleared that up for her.

Uh, Kristine *is* a moderator.

You might want to pay attention when she discusses topicality. You might also want to pay attention to one of the rules here that gets stricter enforcement than some of the others, that being that moderation messages from non-moderators and discussion of moderation issues are considered annoying.

Oh and for some reason I do not have permission to post in the new threads. I figured it was due to some sort of probationary period prior to the security pass like they do at the JW Watchtower and Free Masonry

Well, at least now you're on topic, but why on earth do you imagine anyone here would be interested in a trailer for Expelled? You may notice that this threat is currently 118 pages long and has gone on for 4 years - the commenters here are very familiar with the movie. If I can presume to speak for others here I would say the consensus is that it is total dreck (a view shared by the scientifically literate community). Given what you've posted above I cannot see how you're going to change that.

If you think that the thread has lost its salt then maybe you should take it up with the mode take it up a moderator instead. Come to think of it, I guess am accustomed to threads getting pushed pushed from the top of the first page after about a week so. Oh and Kristine was under the impression that my post on mutations had little or nothing to do with the movie "expelled" so I simply cleared that up for her.

I thought the title "Expelled" was chosen because the subject was the not so intelligently designed theory of expulsion? You know, Sternberg, Egnor ...

Sternberg was actually not expelled. In fact, up until a few months ago he still had the Smithsonian Offices listed as his workplace. [Note that he was never actually employed by the Smithsonian. It's amazingly difficult to get fired from a job you don't actually have.]

Who else, that astronomer (what ever his name is) who didn't get a teaching position... the astronomer who hasn't published a peer-reviewed paper in 7 years. No wonder he didn't get a job. Even Behe says, 'publish or perish'.

That clown at JPL, who was fired not for his beliefs, but because he insisted on forcing those beliefs on his coworkers after multiples requests to stop. It's called harassment.

In fact, the only person that I am aware of who has actually been fired over 'the controversy' was a Texas Education Agency employee who was fired for forwarding an invitation to a pro-evolution talk by (IIRC Eugenie Scott... or maybe it was Barbara Forrest).

So, in the expelled camp, we have a bunch of creationists who are lying and an evolutionist who was fired for promoting reality.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Well, at least now you're on topic, but why on earth do you imagine anyone here would be interested in a trailer for Expelled? You may notice that this threat is currently 118 pages long and has gone on for 4 years - the commenters here are very familiar with the movie. If I can presume to speak for others here I would say the consensus is that it is total dreck (a view shared by the scientifically literate community). Given what you've posted above I cannot see how you're going to change that.

If you think that the thread has lost its salt then maybe you should take it up with the mode take it up a moderator instead. Come to think of it, I guess am accustomed to threads getting pushed pushed from the top of the first page after about a week so. Oh and Kristine was under the impression that my post on mutations had little or nothing to do with the movie "expelled" so I simply cleared that up for her.

This may be my personal moderation style, but I do not consider "is not/is too designed" arguments about claims within "Expelled" to be about the film, as it was a political film, rather than actually advancing a coherent definition of Intelligent Design.

I saw the film. Boy, did I see it! You should read this thread.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

I havnt tried to create any new threads but whenever I try to respond to any new threads, I get a message that says: "You are logged in as forastero but You do not have permission to post in this thread"

You might want to pay attention when she discusses topicality. You might also want to pay attention to one of the rules here that gets stricter enforcement than some of the others, that being that moderation messages from non-moderators and discussion of moderation issues are considered annoying.

Hmm, thats weird because the Penn & Teller forum also found me to be very annoying after just a few posts but they just erased them and banned me a few days after my registration.

So you have amazing arguments to present eh? Stick a couple on the Bathroom Wall. When people have stopped laughing there might be some kind soul that creates a thread for you to present your "arguments".

Place your bets Ladies and Germs. Old wine in new bottles or merely lightly warmed over garbage? This chew toy has its persecution complex set up early. I predict 0.1 Timecubes, a flounce and a series of "you're all fundamentalists".

So you have amazing arguments to present eh? Stick a couple on the Bathroom Wall. When people have stopped laughing there might be some kind soul that creates a thread for you to present your "arguments".

Place your bets Ladies and Germs. Old wine in new bottles or merely lightly warmed over garbage? This chew toy has its persecution complex set up early. I predict 0.1 Timecubes, a flounce and a series of "you're all fundamentalists".

Any takers?

Louis

11 posts and no actual comments on the comments in question.

Sorry Louis, I know better than to take sucker bets.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I havnt tried to create any new threads but whenever I try to respond to any new threads, I get a message that says: "You are logged in as forastero but You do not have permission to post in this thread"

I see. Clearly, this site censors you in a most brutal and efficient manner, which explains why you did not manage to post any replies to this thread...Hmmm. What's wrong with this picture?

You might want to pay attention when she discusses topicality. You might also want to pay attention to one of the rules here that gets stricter enforcement than some of the others, that being that moderation messages from non-moderators and discussion of moderation issues are considered annoying.

Hmm, thats weird because the Penn & Teller forum also found me to be very annoying after just a few posts but they just erased them and banned me a few days after my registration. †:(

Please use the link to the "Board Mechanics" thread to discuss problems with the board software.

Please take discussion of moderation to private message or email. Second warning.

An elaborately designed endocrine system purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli; which btw is just the opposite of the pseudo-scientific natural mutation selection theory that says miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they occur at just the right time and niche

What does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Let me guess, it was "designed"?

Very informative...

"Designed" appeals much more to Occam's Razor than your pantheism below

Once upon a time in a material world, the citizens worshiped a messiah named SuperPan whom they believed brought random gifts of new life every now and then. SuperPan was the god of chaos who had to constantly battle with orderly gene codes, purposeful endocrine, and intelligent DNA repair man who he conquered with his trusty spontaneous generation. Always in just the right niche and time, SuperPan would be blessed by mighty Mother Natureís hand to constantly renew the land. Unfortunately, this belief made man not give a damn about what he already had and survival of the fittest fads and Orwellian scams. They began to chant their creationism del evolution with its primordial brew, mystical mutations, crystal ball chronologies, ape animism, new-age aliens, and radiomagic wands, that proved way wackier than even the pantheism of Pan

Moral of the story: test all things and donít take creation for granted

Look, if you can't be bothered to learn anything that doesn't support your point of view, why are you here. †I could answer all of these, but there's no point because you will just whine and cry that it doesn't answer you question.

Why don't you tell us YOUR notion of how the diversity of life came to be and all the evidence that you have for it.

Remember, even if you disprove evolution right here, right now, it DOES NOT mean intelligent design or creationism is correct. †Only positive supporting evidence can do that. † You don't even have that. †I can point to literally millions of peer-reviewed papers over the last 150 years that support evolution.

You can't point to even one that supports your notions... whatever they are.

Do we have all the answers? †No, of course not. †But we have more than you do.

I'm willing to bet anything that you will not describe your notions of how life came about, provide evidence for it, and defend it in the same way that you demand we defend evolution and science.

This, if true, will make you an epic hypocrite. †Prove me wrong.

You call me a hypocrite yet you defend a poster who alludes that science proves that mitochondria evolved from bacteria.

The Big Bang's order from disorder, your own reverence for puncuated equilibrium, the myriad of machines all scurrying around all point to sudden design

An elaborately designed endocrine system purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli; which btw is just the opposite of the pseudo-scientific natural mutation selection theory that says miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they occur at just the right time and niche

What does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Let me guess, it was "designed"?

Very informative...

"Designed" appeals much more to Occam's Razor than your pantheism below

Once upon a time in a material world, the citizens worshiped a messiah named SuperPan whom they believed brought random gifts of new life every now and then.

That's all very nice (albeit a bit of a re-run of Harter's 1998 Small and Stupid Gods extended analogy/essay), but it doesn't seem to address the question it's ostensibly a reply to. So... what does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

An elaborately designed endocrine system purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli; which btw is just the opposite of the pseudo-scientific natural mutation selection theory that says miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they occur at just the right time and niche

What does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Let me guess, it was "designed"?

Very informative...

"Designed" appeals much more to Occam's Razor than your pantheism below

Once upon a time in a material world, the citizens worshiped a messiah named SuperPan whom they believed brought random gifts of new life every now and then.

That's all very nice (albeit a bit of a re-run of Harter's 1998 Small and Stupid Gods extended analogy/essay), but it doesn't seem to address the question it's ostensibly a reply to. So... what does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

You say puncuated equilibrium via solar radiation (sun god) zapped a bacteria into a mitochondria that eventually turned into horseflies, raccoons, T. rex, and baboons but we say orderly miraculous design.

We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID

The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,04:02)

We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID

How did they use ID - or is ID useless for doing science? †I won't ague about the 99.9% or who was/wasn't an IDer - I'll just note that they weren't expelled, and that their work is taught in public school. †You claim the vast majority of the greatest scientists, yet ID is a threadbare set of vague notions and your martyr complex is a sad little fiction used to sell movies and books to the gullible.

ETA: Wrong thread - copied to correct one.

--------------Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

An elaborately designed endocrine system purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli; which btw is just the opposite of the pseudo-scientific natural mutation selection theory that says miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they occur at just the right time and niche

What does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Let me guess, it was "designed"?

Very informative...

"Designed" appeals much more to Occam's Razor than your pantheism below

Once upon a time in a material world, the citizens worshiped a messiah named SuperPan whom they believed brought random gifts of new life every now and then.

That's all very nice (albeit a bit of a re-run of Harter's 1998 Small and Stupid Gods extended analogy/essay), but it doesn't seem to address the question it's ostensibly a reply to. So... what does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Ha..so you feel my busting rhymes about divine designs was nice but plagiarized?

No, I don't, forry, because you didn't present any of Harter's words as if they'd been written by you. Instead, what you did was present a scenario whose basic premise is fairly similar to that of Harter's essay, thus my note about "a bit of a re-run", in somewhat the same way that the Roger Corman sci-fi flick Battle Beyond the Stars could be thought of as "a bit of a re-run" of Kurasawa's The Seven Samurai. Personally, I don't think that noting Theme X exists in an earlier work constitutes an accusation of plagiarism; your mileage may vary...Still nothing on the topic of what ID tells us about how that system came to be, I note.

Quote

You say puncuated equilibrium via solar radiation (sun god) zapped a bacteria into a mitochondria that eventually turned into horseflies, raccoons, T. rex, and baboons but we say orderly miraculous design.

No, 'we' don't say that. Would you like to learn about what 'we' actually do say? If so, would you like to discuss what 'we' say before or after you explain what ID tells us about how that system came to be?

Quote

We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet...

As best I can tell, you IDiots haven't figured out anything, ID-wise. This does not surprise me, because all throughout its existence, the ID movement has always been a wholly-owned subsidiary of good old Creationism, and the scientific content of ID (such as it is) can be accurately summarized in two sentences whose total word-count is less than 15 words. One of these sentences is Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something, and the other is, Somehow, somewhere, some way, evolution is wrong.If you disagree that the above two sentences constitute an accurate summary of ID, forry, I invite you to identify any point of inaccuracy in them. For instance, you could explain what ID has to say about its Intelligent Designer other than what little information is contained in the phrase 'Intelligent Designer'..?

I don't know how long Amazon has been featuring user-contributed "So you'd like to..." guides. but the first one I noticed was just yesterday and it gave me a laugh: "So you'd like to...Lower Your I.Q." You know what DVD was featured.LinkEdited for readability and to mimic original style.

--------------To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov

I don't know how long Amazon has been featuring user-contributed "So you'd like to..." guides. but the first one I noticed was just yesterday and it gave me a laugh: "So you'd like to...Lower Your I.Q." You know what DVD was featured.LinkEdited for readability and to mimic original style.

Bwahaha! I love it.

BTW, have you seen what Ben Stein entitled his latest book? Take a friggin' guess!

What Would Ben Stein Do? Applying the Wisdom of a Modern-Day Prophet to Tackle the Challenges of Work and Life †

This after he denied the 2007 economic downturn right before it happened. If he's a prophet, I'm a supermodel!

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive